birdog1960
-
Posts
7,653 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by birdog1960
-
-
Tell that to Seattle.......who runs a ton...and wins
statistics don't hold for every example. they hold for the majority of examples. they represent what is most likely to happen not always what does happen. it's really a pretty simple concept. not rocket surgery.
-
Like selecting Dominque Easley in the 1st round in 2014 when he had just torn an ACL? Was this conventional thinking? Should the Bills follow suit? By definition the Patriots draft strategy is "by the seat of their pants". They constantly trade down and assume they will get whoever they get. They constantly pick up QB's on a gamble. The biggest reason for their success was a guy they let pass them by 5 times before deciding "since we are smarter than everyone else, now we will take this potential HOF QB for great value!". (that was sarcasm, they had no idea Brady would become who he became)
did you even read the buffalo news article on analytics?
what you describe follows the core tenets almost exactly:
later rounds hold more value (more picks mena abetter chance at finding a diamond)
trading up is almost always a mistake (teams just aren't that good at choosing future stars especially if they are injured to start with)
the power running game is statistically a losing philosophy. passing is where you win. (pick lots of qb's)
the opposite of seat of the pants. this all makes statistical sense.
the more qb's you draft, the better chance of finding a brady.
-
Nice inconsistent hindsight analysis.
No **** that the moves backfired, but each was done for different reasons. If you are going to be critical of someone, it's helpful that you criticize them based on a strategy, not based on whether the move worked or not. But that's why you deservedly get raked over the coals.
outcomes follow methodology and ability. the bills outcomes suck, consistently. gronk was taken by a team that appears to follow pretty conventional thinking, acts rationally ( often coldheartedly) without emotion, rarely trades up, rarely makes huge draft gambles and has drafted nearly 2x as many qb's in the last 20 years than the bills. their methodology strikes me as more in line with the philosophy of analytics and much less seat of the pants.
their outcomes are the best in the league overall. I don't think it is coincidence. it's a mindset that the bills still don't appear to share.
-
That is a weak cop out answer. The biggest draft failing by this franchise was not drafting enough QBs over the last 20 years. Nothing more nothing less.
Please tell me the common thought pattern in drafting McGahee knowing he'd be out for one year and not drafting Gronkowski because they were concerned about his back injury.
this is hilarious. the common theme is obviously that they were wrong in both cases. it's almost like they try to be wrong. that's the common denominator in bills drafts year after year. they are mostly wrong.
-
You can't be serious.
6 different GMs and 2 different owners in the last 16 years, not to mention the complete retooling of the scouting department, and you think you can "draw conclusions" as if those same 8 people all had the same concept on drafting over decades? The game has changed. The players have changed. The personnel departments have changed. Are you suggesting that the Bills draft the same way they did back in 1990s?
in the sense that they generally ignore conventional wisdom, take big risks and pretend they no better than the pack, yes, i'm serious. it's been a recurring, relatively constant theme.
-
I wonder if it has anything to do with Jack's much higher risk of never playing again if the knee buckles compared to Lawson's 92% probability of being better and stronger than while in college.
perhaps jack should have gone even later. interesting that another desperate, perennial losing nfl franchise was the first to pull the trigger.
-
Over a large sample size and/or in the long term, that is correct. Results of any small sample can vary widely from the expected result, however. For example, it's fair to judge a Hold 'Em player who calls 2-to-1 odds on an inside straight draw after the turn. Sure, it might happen to work out in that particular case, but that doesn't make it a good strategy. It's fair to judge it as a poor move even before the river card gets flipped over. In fact, the result of that one instance is meaningless with regard to judging the strategy. Sometimes the right move doesn't work out and sometimes the wrong one does.
agreed, over the long term. that's what statistical analysis is all about.
I think the bills have a large enough sample size to measure the outcomes and draw conclusions about the drafting methodology that appears little changed over the last several decades.
-
Seat of the pants? Your total lack of appreciation for the sheer number of man hours involved is staggering. And even then it is a 50/50 proposition. If you are ever inclined, look at all the players drafted by every team over the last 40 years,and you will see just how close all teams are in their respective draft success. No matter how much you want to make it an exact science or believe that nobody is worse than us, it just isn't so.
GO BILLS!!!
most, if not all jobs involving evaluation and judgment are inexact. same in my job and likely yours. that makes the spectrum of quality levels attained in that evaluation process even more obvious and important. the outcomes almost always speak for themselves.
-
How is that germane to the issue? I mean other than, "Whaley and the Bills are idiots because all the other GMs that passed on Lawson and they are all smart."
It doesn't mean jack schit what any other GM or scout felt about Lawson. What matters is what the Bills felt about him. Period. From the few scouts I have access to, they all agree he was a legit top 15 player, regardless. From that, one can deduce that the entire scouting community sees him as a solid starter in this league.
I get it though, the Bills took a calculated gamble on the shoulder holding up until after the season and lost. And of course, IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!
GO BILLS!!!
yes. because the bills have been right so many times recently when everyone else in the league was wrong...
it's germane in that whaley and the bills repeatedly act like the cat that ate the canary only to end up looking like the cat that took a dump on the carpet. hmmm, top 15 went at 19. jack, top 5 went at 36. a knee that can be played on short term is worth 30 spots. a shoulder that can't 4. the average nfl career is 3.3 years i believe. these numbers are germane. make perfect sense.
once again seat- of - the pants decision making is not a common trait among successful nfl franchises. it's a ubiquitous trait of desperate, perennial losing franchises that can't seem to recognize the fault.
-
Well, it's awfully hard to "enlighten" someone when they're being intentionally obtuse, but I'll take a shot at it anyway.
Jack fell because there are concerns about his long-term health. My position is that because his level of play portended all-pro ability, the upside of his on-field ability outweighs the potential long-term complication of his knee injury. Of course, I actually looked at the relevant data regarding players coming back from microfracture surgery, whereas I'm sure you haven't. Here it is, in case you care:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2016/teams-dont-know-jack
For your information, my "calculus" also had guys like Chris Jones and Tyler Boyd going about 20 spots earlier, and it had guys like Robby Anderson, Elandon Roberts, Keyarris Garrett, and a bevy of other guys you've never heard of getting drafted in the top 4 rounds, whereas that didn't happen. I also think that guys like Keanu Neal, Will Fuller, and Kenny Clark had no business going as high as they did. Guess what? It doesn't make me right at this point, and it also doesn't make me wrong.
What it really seems like you want to argue is whether or not the Bills will be right in the long-term, and that's patently absurd, since we won't know for a few years.
As to negative valuation on Shaq due to injury, it depends on whether you have a short-term, microwave-style mentality toward building a team. If you do, then yes, you'll want to de-value a guy that might miss games in his rookie year, but also might not if things work out properly and he can have the surgery during his first offseason. However, if you build a team the smart way, and are looking to accumulate the best players for the long-term success of the team, then you're going to evaluate what a guy can do for your team over a 5-10 year period, and make your selection based on that.
Sounds to me like you're more concerned over what happens in the first 4-6 weeks of 2016 than you are over the next decade. That's your prerogative.
Me? I believe that the upside of what a stud EDGE defender will give you over the next 5 years is far more valuable than the downside of his missing 4-6 games, which is why I don't get as upset about Shaq's shoulder as some do.
so for you, lawson's injury had no effect on his draft position, nor, in retrospect should it have. at least you are honest.
would you concede that would be a solid minority opinion among nfl gm's and scouts?
this is exactly the magical thinking that leads the bills to go against the grain so often with predictably bad results. this one might be different. even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.
-
Absolutely not. Myles Jack would've been my pick.
Does it mean I know better? No. What it means (and I'm no longer shocked that I have to explain such things, for the record...thanks for that) is that I place a higher value on how impactful I believe Myles Jack can be if indeed he can avoid the career-threatening surgery that even he admits he's likely to need at some point.
The difference between Jack and Shaq (which you clearly do not understand with your Shah comparison and refusal to retract such lunacy) is that Shaq will miss time in the short-term, but is all-but-certain to return to full capacity. Jack is unlikely to miss any time in the short-term, but is likely to need career-threatening surgery. They aren't even close to making the same decision, and no, I'm not the guy that likened them to each other; that was you.
Are we all clear now?
clear as mud.
jack was a projected top 5. he fell 30+ spots by the nfl market, real life calculus. yet your calculus results in him being taken almost 20 spots earlier. so my conclusion is that you, like the bills and your average loser stock picker, believes he has some magical ability to beat the pack in such decisions. what other conclusion can be drawn? enlighten me...
while lawson's injury may represent less long term risk, it certainly represented some short term risk which was likely underestimated by the bills. the fulfillment of that risk has some significant negative draft value adjustment associated with it. do you not even concede that?
-
Well, to be fair, Myles Jack was easily my pick at the time.
are you retracting this comment then?
does that not imply that you believe you knew better than at least 17 nfl teams and their staffs?
You've been asked multiple times to quantify the risk. But why do that when you can bloviate nonsense.
here's a metric: no other team took him before buffalo did at 19. i'm not an analyst. what should a torn labrum and missing all of training camp and several months of a rookies first year be valued at? don't know but it's clearly worth something. there's probably several algorithms that quantitate that risk. I doubt the bills used any algorithm. if you disagree and believe they did, tell me why. what Brandon recently said doesn't support an analytic approach to the question.
-
Comparing the two situations is folly.
Myles Jack dropped because of the increased likelihood that he could eventually need career-threatening surgery (though I definitely would've taken him anyway).
Shaq Lawson needed a surgery that has a 90% success rate for the general population (though I realize that, in your opinion, it's tantamount to removing the Shah's spleen), and would be a short-term issue.
you made the comparison.
in your infinite wisdom, you would have taken jack at 19 instead of 36 where the market (and very likely a good number of analysts) ultimately valued him. serious injury or not, you clearly felt the benefits outweighed the risks. it's very closely analogous to the calculus involved in valuing this injured player that the bills actually did pick.
-
"If you find it crippling to take a well researched risk in a business that risks are part of the environment then it is recommended that you find another field of endeavor. "
it's not about being "crippled" by risk. it's about being smart and playing the odds. it's about the meaning of "well researched". as high an upside as miles jack had in most teams eyes, his known injury dropped his draft number greatly. yet the bills felt differently about this pick.
I suspect it relates to the analytics thread that should, as an issue of importance to this organizations success, be at the top of the forum. interestingly it has dropped from sight. analytics be damned. gut feelings and instincts by perpetual losers are the path to success.
-
The Rockets are the most analytical team in the NBA and they stink.
there are good analysts and bad analysts. just as there are good mutual funds and bad ones. the fact that some suck doesn't make the entire model invalid.
-
Yes, but that's a misleading statement. They don't dispute that you should be able to get a better player at a higher pick. They're arguement is that when all factors are taken into account - expected production, rookie and future contracts, risk and trade values of picks - that there's more VALUE at the end of round 1 than at the beginning. In fact, the sweet spot for value seems to be in day 2 of the draft. However - and it's a very big however - they'll be the first people to tell you that you can't build a team with nothing but 2nd and 3rd round picks. You'd have a poor team and a ton of cap space left over (and be well below the league spending minimum) if you did.
You still need to spend capital - draft picks and cap space - on difference makers. Analytics not only tries to determine who those difference makers are, but it also tries to show a team where it can free up money to afford those players.
this.
but it takes innovators and people with conviction to accept new paradigms. eventually the new becomes standard and the laggards are miles behind while losing to all the innovators in the meantime. from the article, it seems the paradigm shift has occurred in the majority of the league
i think the investment analogy is especially apt. the bills appear to be trying to time the market. make the big score by gambling. but in that model you need to time the market top AND the market bottom. any analyst worth his salt will tell you that's very unlikely. yet like losing investors that play this high risk game, the bills continue to believe that they are special. they can beat the odds. they can't. it's called statistics.
-
First off, compliments to TG for a rarity by Buffalo media: a story in depth in which complicated ideas are clearly explained and from which I learned things I didn't know.
Secondly, the possible shortcomings in analytics is revealed by the data on Carolina. If I understand it correctly, the data shows that Carolina made it to the SB but shouldn't have if the analytics was infallible which reminds me of that old saw, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin'eyes." I once met an American couple in France who set out touring the Cote du Rhone wine countryside using GPS. The device took them on the correct highway then onto a country road then onto a narrow dirt lane and finally down into a no-path field where they became enmeshed in brambles and had to be towed out. I asked why they kept going when they could see the mess they were getting into and the guy said, "Because that's what the GPS was telling them to do."
i don't think it says that at all
he Carolina Panthers ranked first in rushing attempts, and Cam Newton ran most among quarterbacks. The Panthers went to the Super Bowl, but Football Outsiders ranked them the NFL’s second-most efficient defense. The Bills’ defense ranked 24th.
The first Football Outsiders essay, written by founder Aaron Schatz in July 2003, refuted the long-held belief an offense must establish the run: “There is no correlation whatsoever between giving your running backs a lot of carries early in the game and winning the game,” Schatz wrote. Victorious teams in today’s NFL generally end a game with solid rushing stats because they were winning and working on the clock.
i think it says carolina won in a large part because of a good defense that let them run out the clock often.
the rules buffalo is accused of breaking are apparently core, established principles among respected analysts. will they sometimes be wrong? of course, but more often than not they'll be right. the bills repeatedly seem to think they're better at guessing when the core principles will be wrong than anyone else. and they have been repeatedly wrong. from brandon's comments, they are no closer to smartening up.
-
The criticism of picking a player who had a high chance of missing part or all of his first season due to a pre-existing injury is valid. Some models of draft pick valuation consider the cost savings of a player on a rookie contract versus what an equivalent veteran would cost. The value portion of those contracts is for 4 seasons. The Bills are going to lose a portion of that value with Lawson, probably close to one full season - or 25% of his rookie contract value. He was at the end of the pick band that I had him in so I can't really give a bump for value at 19. Lawson at 19 is a mistake from that point of view.
But those models use averages and variances. About 50% of the 1st round picks in this draft (every draft) will bust. So to your point, nobody will care about this missed season if he's a long terms stud for the Bills. I really liked Lawson as a player (injury aside) so I personally like his chances long term. We are all rooting for him to work out and become a difference maker. It is not fair to criticize Lawson for this situation or call him out as a bust. But the people and processes that led to taking him with a torn labrum at 19 do deserve scrutiny because even if they get away with it this time this kind of mismanagement will lead to problems at some point.
this.
the difference between this and the other rookie injury examples is that this was foreseeable. many teams not called the bills appear to have predicted a problem.
-
What constitutes the end of the world? I don't know, the world has never ended. But how about not burning Whaley at the stake for making draft choices that extends beyond the first 6 games of that players career? Yes, the next 4.5 years outweigh the next .5 years, 16 years without playoffs, or not. It is common sense.
you all play pretty loose with numbers. he has a 4 year contract. coming back in Nov is more like 8 games which constitutes 1/8 of his contracted time before he plays his first down. that's common sense.
-
Do you know the difference between spinning this into something good vs. not spinning it as the end of the world?
Nothing more than a tough break for the kid and the Bills.
But with you, EVERY PHUCKING THING has to be an indictment against the entire organization.
GO BILLS!!!
what would constitute the end of the world in
NFL terms? 25 years with no playoffs? this pick moves one step closer to that. not a sure thing but neither is lawson after surgery (and presumably we've now accepted "next year" as his time to start contributing).
-
I used to be the biggest homer ever but this offseason has gotten silly. Mario, who was beloved here after 2014, is suddenly the worst player in team history. So we spend a very valuable 1st round pick to replace a 2nd team all pro DE, and he has surgery. I hope Lawson has a full recovery and turns out to be a stud. But man, it looks really bad right now.
careful. you may well be childishly vilified here. but somehow i'm betting that doesn't overly concern you.
it indeed looks really bad to anyone without blinders on.
-
Americans are complete idiots when it comes to race. We can't tell the difference between "race," "ethnicity," "culture," and "nation."
no. the problem is more that so many fail to see that racism is institutionalized in many states or they do see it and fail to condemn it:
In fact, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys presented a statewide training course in 1995 that included a handout called "Batson justifications: Articulating Juror Negatives," listing 10 kinds of "justifications" that can be offered as a race-neutral explanation for a juror strike.The Texas District and County Attorneys Association distributed a similar list, called "Batson Basics" at its Prosecutor Trial Skills Course in 2004. Of course, a prosecutor is supposed to give the actual reason for striking the potential juror, not one prepared by someone else long before trial.The lists provide a rare public glimpse of a common practice: Strike the black potential jurors because of race and later assert a plausible, race-neutral reason for the strikes. Some prosecutors give a "laundry list" of reasons in the hope that one of an unusually large number of reasons for the strike will be found to be a valid reason for striking the juroreuphemisms and nuanced words are minor problems compared with the very real problem of pervasive racism.. trump's success is a testament to that fact. -
His remarks strike me as being more nationalist than racist. He's not criticizing the judge for being Latino, he's questioning his bias based on his Mexican heritage. I don't think that's particularly smart, but I also don't consider it racist.
interestingly, the supreme court ruled on ethnicity in juries and judged that excluding anyone because of this was unconstitutional. it would logically follow for judges. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/opinions/supreme-court-black-jurors-bright/index.html it was certainly racist in the case the supremes looked at.
also lost in the shuffle is the implied threat to this particular judge by trump should he win in November. the analyst that I heard said that this was unprecedented in a party nominee.
-
I got roasted on here a month ago for saying this guy will be out until November.
It's ridiculous.
exactly. but the bills propaganda team here gets there panties in a wad when you call them out on it.
RD 1, Pick 19: DE Shaq Lawson, Clemson University
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
it's not surprising you all are apologists for one of the worst run professional sports organizations in recent history.
you lack the ability to use reasoning and calculated analysis to make judgements devoid of favoritism or wishful thinking. but carry on. this type of support for failure must be very satisfying.